Author
Topic: 5D Mark III Full Spec List? (Read 74015 times)

There seems to be a lot of fanboys in this thread... hardware wise how much better really do you feel this is than the 5D mark II besides the DIGIC 5 (which handles the high iso and framerate) and the small increase in MP by the sensor? If you pretend that this camera wasn't from Canon would you still feel the same way?

Yes. First off, Digic5+ is not the only reason for the higher frame rate - the mirror box needs to be stronger and have faster motors, even moreso for the 12 fps of the 1D X.

As stated, MP count isn't necessarily the most important factor, or even an important factor for many. The 21 MP of the 5DII was fine, the 18 MP of the 1D X is fine.

The big improvement, IMO, is the AF system of the 5DIII. It's still not 1D X AF, and as I expected the metering is the 7D's metering system (and 60D, 600D, etc.), not the 100K RGB sensor of the 1D X, and that sensor also assists the AF system.

If the photo is real, i was right abt the dial mode, it was not the lock type from the previous leaked pics and im glad it wasnt !!!

If certainly looks to me like the camera features the same button-lock in the center of the mode dial, as on the 60D (and optional retrofit for the 5DII and 7D). I'm not happy about this 'feature' since anything that slows down a mode change is annoying.

On the opposite side of the lens mount release. Possibly programmable as on the 1D X (although just one and not two).

Personally, I'm really glad they did not add a popup flash. For me, trying to use a TS-E lens on a 7D is an exercise in frustration, because the protrusion of the flash blocks access to the TS controls (even with the smaller knob included for use with crop bodies, and that little knob is even harder to turn).

Well, HAPPY HAPPY about 61/41 AF!! Seems the 5D line is finally getting an appropriate and competitive AF system. I was extremely skeptical it would, glad to be proven wrong on that one!

A bit dismayed about the metering though. iFCL 63-zone....rather than the 1D X 100k RGB pixel metering and AF assist system. Guess thats entirely logical...even if we get the full 61pt AF of the 1D X, no way its going to perform as well without the linked in metering and slower FPS. Still, HAPPY it will have a better AF system!!

Also VERY HAPPY that it is still using LP-E6 batteries! I bought a bunch of those for my 7D, and totally expected to have to buy a bunch of a different kind when the 5D III came out. Looks like I can share my batteries amongst both bodies! WOOT!!

I really hope the same LP-E6 batteries as the 7D & 5D II,..that will be very nice!!

People might get annoyed or offended, but I think this needs to be said (don't smite me, please). If you are or wish to be a full-frame shooter and really, truly, heartfully can look at the spec list for this new camera and say with a straight face, "wow, Canon REALLY missed the mark on this one. The D800 is going to crush this!" then I feel confident encouraging you to go buy Nikon equipment, because constantly switching is going to be the only way for you to find happiness in this world. You could try getting a pet, too. Like a gerbil.

I made a post a week ago that I now would like to retract, claiming that the 5D III was in trouble if the price point was really $3,500 compared the D800's $3,000. Given the spec list here and the sheer refined look of this camera, I think it easily justifies the extra $200 or $300 in actual market price over the D800. EASILY.

For the individual claiming that this is just not enough resolution and you need 38 for your wedding photography, you're not going to find a lot of friends over at Nikon, given that they only had 12 megapixel sensors for, like, a millennia, and did just fine. I'd like to take a moment to remind you that in the 1990s, wedding photographers shot with a medium called "film" with 45 autofocus points. If you can honestly look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that your photographs look bad or in any way insufficient at 21 or 22 megapixels, I will do you the courtesy of looking you back in the eye and telling you bluntly that it's not your camera that sucks, it's you. I will than buy your 5D Mark II from you and give you a pat on the back. It's going to be okay.

I had no plans to upgrade from my 5D Mark II, but this camera is making me rethink that given that it didn't just upgrade one or two things, but everything, including the body lines (still waiting on dimensions and weight). This tells me that Canon has generated a golden seller. If this thing weighs less and is smaller than the Mark II, I'm advising the wife the credit card bill is going bulge this coming August. Autumn landscapes, here we come... Again, no smiting, please. This is to be a day of joy and happiness.

I'm not going to smite you, I applaud you!

Logged

'Photographers are the eyes of the world'Focus on Landscape/Nature, Architecture, Technology, Wildlife, Street

tss68nl

No its not possible.The 5D2 is about 1/2 stop better than 5D.The D3s is about 2/3 stop better than D700.

The 5D3 is not expected to have 1 stop advantage over 5D2. That would require a QE of ~66%. I don't say it's impossible but it would be a very big (and nice) surprice.

I don't expect anything until we can actually see test shots to compare, but the whole QE discussion is bugging me, and here's why:

QE talks about the amount of photons that actually get registered on a sensor site. So it's about the percentage of light that actually gets registered. While it would be a good thing to actually register a greater % of light (it would effectively gain low light performance since the world looks brighter to the sensor), it doesnt mean this is the only way to improve low light performance.

When we talk about low light performance, we could not care less about QE in percentage, but the variance in QE. If a sensor site registers 35% of the photons, while the site next to it registers 30%, it introduces noise. What if they find a way to make all sensor pixels/sites consequently and equally receptive to light at say 30% QE? You could easily amplify that signal without introducing heaps of noise.

This leads to two conclusions:* If QE is improved, then low light performance is most probably improved because the sensor has more light to work with. Besides that, when a sensor has 80% QE (hypothetically), then there is most likely less room for error/variance as well, contributing to less noise.* Improving QE is not the only way to improve low light noise performance. If they find a way to reduce the variance in QE, then noise levels will go down as well.

In short: people saying a 2 stop increase in low light performance would be impossible due to laws of physics are probably wrong. Do I expect a 2 stop increase? Not at all. Would I order one if it does have a 2 stop increase? Most certainly yes

Currently I fail to see any magic in this camera, just as usual Canon's crippled update, whereas the price seems to indicate premium qualities.

In that sense Nikon has clear and understandable distinction - full package in all FF cameras targeting different auditoriums, against Canon's very expensive and crippled expensive option.

What exactly do you think is crippled about this? These specs look much more appealing to me than the Nikon D800.

Exactly... granted it can still change up until it's release, but other than MP, what does the D800 have that the 5d3 (rumored) doesn't have that has been confirmed? ISO even wins (theoretically until tested) which is a first for canon.

Well, the D800 may have lower cost...higher shutter actuations...I'm sure a Nikon fan could list other objective advantages.

People might get annoyed or offended, but I think this needs to be said (don't smite me, please). If you are or wish to be a full-frame shooter and really, truly, heartfully can look at the spec list for this new camera and say with a straight face, "wow, Canon REALLY missed the mark on this one. The D800 is going to crush this!" then I feel confident encouraging you to go buy Nikon equipment, because constantly switching is going to be the only way for you to find happiness in this world. You could try getting a pet, too. Like a gerbil.

I made a post a week ago that I now would like to retract, claiming that the 5D III was in trouble if the price point was really $3,500 compared the D800's $3,000. Given the spec list here and the sheer refined look of this camera, I think it easily justifies the extra $200 or $300 in actual market price over the D800. EASILY.

For the individual claiming that this is just not enough resolution and you need 38 for your wedding photography, you're not going to find a lot of friends over at Nikon, given that they only had 12 megapixel sensors for, like, a millennia, and did just fine. I'd like to take a moment to remind you that in the 1990s, wedding photographers shot with a medium called "film" with 45 autofocus points. If you can honestly look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that your photographs look bad or in any way insufficient at 21 or 22 megapixels, I will do you the courtesy of looking you back in the eye and telling you bluntly that it's not your camera that sucks, it's you. I will than buy your 5D Mark II from you and give you a pat on the back. It's going to be okay.

I had no plans to upgrade from my 5D Mark II, but this camera is making me rethink that given that it didn't just upgrade one or two things, but everything, including the body lines (still waiting on dimensions and weight). This tells me that Canon has generated a golden seller. If this thing weighs less and is smaller than the Mark II, I'm advising the wife the credit card bill is going bulge this coming August. Autumn landscapes, here we come... Again, no smiting, please. This is to be a day of joy and happiness.

6/ And yes I would love to have a full frame with no Video, but better ISO and AF with a price that would not bring me to huge troubles about what-if I loose or break my camera-body.

I still hope for 5DMx could be it. ;-)

Yeah I guess a lot of us want that … but Canon won't hear it !!!

Sorry, you won't get this. Other than a mic input, onboard mic, and maybe one button, there are no other hardware differences between adding video and not. All the features are mostly software based so it doesn't add alot to the price. Just think, the Canon t2i does video just as well as the 5D mark II (minus the full frame) and canon didn't add more than $50 to the cost of the t1i. My 60D has full manual audio control as well and that is a cheap camera. It really does not add much to the price.